U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART I— THE AGENCIES GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 9— EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION

5 U.S.C. § 906

Effective date and publication of reorganization plans

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as provided under subsection (c) of this section, a reorganization plan shall be effective upon approval by the President of a resolution (as defined in section 909) with respect to such plan, if such resolution is passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, within the first period of 90 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to Congress. Failure of either House to act upon such resolution by the end of such period shall be the same as disapproval of the resolution.(b) For the purpose of this chapter—(1) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment of Congress sine die; and(2) the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain are excluded in the computation of any period of time in which Congress is in continuous session.(c) Under provisions contained in a reorganization plan, any provision thereof may be effective at a time later than the date on which the plan otherwise is effective.(d) A reorganization plan which is effective shall be printed (1) in the Statutes at Large in the same volume as the public laws and (2) in the Federal Register.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 396; Pub. L. 95–17, § 2, Apr. 6, 1977, 91 Stat. 32; Pub. L. 98–614, § 3(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3192.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

(a)–(c)

5 U.S.C. 133z–4.

June 20, 1949, ch. 226, § 6, 63 Stat. 205.

Sept. 4, 1957, Pub. L. 85–286, § 2, 71 Stat. 611.

(d)

5 U.S.C. 133z–9.

June 20, 1949, ch. 226, § 11, 63 Stat. 206.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–614, § 3(a)(1), struck out “otherwise” before “provided under subsection (c)”, substituted “shall be” for “is” before “effective”, and substituted “upon approval by the President of a resolution (as defined in section 909) with respect to such plan, if such resolution is passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, within the first period of 90 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to Congress. Failure of either House to act upon such resolution by the end of such period shall be the same as disapproval of the resolution” for “at the end of the first period of sixty calendar days of continuous session of Congress after the date on which the plan is transmitted to it unless, between the date of transmittal and the end of the sixty-day period, either House passes a resolution stating in substance that the House does not favor the reorganization plan.”

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98–614, § 3(a)(2), struck out before period at end “or, if both Houses of Congress have defeated a resolution of disapproval, may be effective at a time earlier than the expiration of the sixty-day period required by subsection (a)”.

1977—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–17 substituted “sixty” for “60” in two places.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–17 substituted in provisions preceding par. (1) “this chapter” for “subsection (a) of this section” and in par. (2) “any period of time in which Congress is in continuous session” for “the 60-day period”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 95–17 inserted provision that if both Houses of Congress have defeated a resolution of disapproval, the provision of a reorganization plan may be effective at a time earlier than the expiration of the sixty-day period required by subsec. (a).

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 95–17 reenacted subsec. (d) without change.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesRatification and Affirmation of Prior Reorganization Plans as Law; Actions Taken Pursuant to Such Plans

Pub. L. 98–532, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2705, provided that:

“Section 1. The Congress hereby ratifies and affirms as law each reorganization plan that has, prior to the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 19, 1984], been implemented pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9 of title 5, United States Code, or any predecessor Federal reorganization statute.
“Sec. 2. Any actions taken prior to the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 19, 1984] pursuant to a reorganization plan that is ratified and affirmed by section 1 shall be considered to have been taken pursuant to a reorganization expressly approved by Act of Congress.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). · cites it 4× “When the Department of Justice advised the Senate on the constitutionality of congressional review in reorganization legislation in 1949, it stated: "In this procedure there is no question involved of the Congress taking legislative action beyond its initial passage of the…”
Canning v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “§ 682(5) (for purpose of congressional budget consideration, “continuity of a session of the Congress shall be considered as broken only by an adjournment of the Congress sine die”); 5 U.S.C. § 906 (b)(1) (for purpose of agency reorganization plans, “continuity of session is…”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, Cross v. The Hernando Bank, Inc., Cross, 724 F.2d 1188 (5th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “Hernando Bank argues that the Reorganization Act and all reorganization plans promulgated thereunder must be found invalid because the Reorganization Act contains a legislative veto provision similar to the one struck down in Chadha, see 5 U.S.C. § 906 . 1 We do not agree. After…”
Gary A. Soucie v. Edward E. David, Jr., Dir., Off. of Sci. & Tech., 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1971). “205 , as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 906 (Supp. V, 1970). . A resolution disapproving the plan which created the OST was introduced in the House of Representatives, but did not pass.”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl-Cio v. Samuel R. Pierce, Sec'y of Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 697 F.2d 303 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “For example, we note that both the Reorganization Act of 1977, 5 U.S.C. § 906 (Supp. V 1981), and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974, 31 U.”
EEOC v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 589 F. Supp. 534 (E.D. Mo. 1984). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 906 (a). Pursuant to these procedures, President Carter prepared Reorganization Plan No.”
Muller Optical Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 574 F. Supp. 946 (W.D. Tenn. 1983). “If during the sixty days after a plan was transmitted to Congress, neither house passed “a resolution stating in substance that the House does not favor the reorganization plan,” then the reorganization plan became effective.”
EQUAL Emp. OPPORTUNITY Comm'n, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CBS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 743 F.2d 969 (2d Cir. 1984). “Thus, we must decide whether congress would have delegated to the President the broad reorganizing authority granted him by the Act without reserving for itself the one-house veto power contained in 5 U.S.C. § 906 (a). For guidance we look to the statute and its relevant…”
Consum. Energy Council of Am. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 673 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “the reorganization statute are constitutionally valid,” but emphasizing this “is to be taken in no manner as approving the constitutionality of the procedure of congressional disapproval of executive action by resolution in other statutes”).”
Local 2677, Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Phillips, 358 F. Supp. 60 (D.D.C. 1973). “5 U.S.C. § 906 (a). The Act further outlines the procedures to be followed if either House passes such a resolution.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Allstate Ins. Co., 467 U.S. 1232 (1984). “Pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 906 (a), any plan submitted by the President became “effective” at the end of 60 days of continuous session of the Congress unless during that time either House passed a resolution of disapproval or its equivalent.”
United States v. State of New York, 82 F.R.D. 2 (N.D.N.Y. 1978). “See 5 U.S.C. § 906 . Thereafter, on June 30, 1978, President Carter issued Executive Order Number 12068 declaring: .”
Show all 33 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.